This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-09-09 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In essence, petitioner would want this Court to review the factual conclusions reached by the appellate court. The cardinal rule adhered to in this jurisdiction is that a petition for review must raise only questions of law,[3] and judicial review under Rule 45 does not extend to an evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence unless there is a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[4] This Court, while not a trier of facts, may review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct factual conclusion based on the record especially so when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at variance with those of the trial court, or when the inference drawn by the Court of Appeals from the facts is manifestly mistaken.[5] | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals cited the case of Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. IAC,[14] where this Court stated that a personal check is not legal tender or money, and held that the check deposited in this case must be cleared before its value could be properly transferred to private respondent's account. | |||||